skrifter utgivna av svenska institutet i athen, 4o, xlvii:v:1 3

acta instituti atheniensis regni sueciae, series in 4o, xlvii:v:1

The Greek-Swedish Excavations

at the Agia Aikaterini Square
Kastelli, Khania
1970-1987, 2001, 2005 and 2008

Results of the excavations under the direction of

Yannis Tzedakis and Carl-Gustaf Styrenius

EDITED BY
Erik Hallager and Birgitta P. Hallager

VOL. V:1
TEXT

THE LATE MINOAN IIIA:1 and II settlementS

with main contributions by
Birgitta P. Hallager & Erik Hallager

STOCKHOLM 2016
Distributor: eddy.se ab
4

Editorial Committee:
Prof. Gunnel Ekroth, Uppsala, Chairman
Prof. Arne Jönsson, Lund, Vice-Chairman
Ms Kristina Björksten Jersenius, Stockholm, Treasurer
Dr Erika Weiberg, Uppsala, Secretary
Prof. Peter M. Fischer, Göteborg; MA Axel Frejman, Uppsala; Dr Kristian Göransson, Rome; Prof. Karin Blomqvist, Lund; Prof. Arja
Karivieri, Stockholm; Dr Emilie Karlsmo, Uppsala; Prof. Anne-Marie Leander Touati, Lund; Dr Arto Penttinen, Athens

Editor: Distributor:
Dr Jenni Hjohlman eddy.se ab
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies Box 1310
Stockholm University SE-621 24 Visby
SE-106 91 Stockholm
editor@ecsi.se For general information, see www.ecsi.se
For subscriptions, prices and delivery, see http://ecsi.bokorder.se
Secretary’s address:
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History The English text was revised by Rebecca Montague, Hindon,
Uppsala University Salisbury, UK
Box 626
SE-751 26 Uppsala
secretary@ecsi.se

Published with the aid of a grant from

The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities

Abstract

Hallager, E. & Hallager B.P. (eds.)

The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania 1970-1987, 2001, 2005 and 2008
Vol. V The Late Minoan IIIA:1 and II settlements.
Stockholm 2016, Vol. V:1, 500 pp.; Vol. V:2, 232 pp. with 218 plates.
Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4º, 47:5:1-2. ISBN 978-91-7916-064-7.

This volume is the fifth in a series of eight presenting the results of the Greek-Swedish Excavations during the
years 1970-1987, 2001, 2005 and 2008 in the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli Khania. The excavations which are
situated close to the harbour of the modern town of Khania, western Crete were under the direction of Dr Yan-
nis Tzedakis and Professor Carl-Gustaf Styrenius.
During the years of excavation the LM II and LM IIIA:1 period was always considered a unit, called “Level
5”. The following detailed studies of stratigraphy and pottery, however, made it clear that the two chronological
phases at the GSE also represented two different stratigraphic units. After the LM IB destruction at the site a
few rooms of the destroyed houses were cleaned of the destruction debris and repaired to offer very modest
living conditions. While the part of the settlement excavated by the GSE can only be described as a squat-
ter habitation during LM II and LM IIIA:1 there can be little doubt that an important part of the settlement
existed nearby. This can be deduced from two observations at the GSE. One observation is the fact that the old
streets were cleaned of destruction debris and maintained throughout the period showing that communication
within the town was still needed. The second observation is the finds from the many pits of the periods. The lo-
cally produced pottery is of a very high quality especially in LM IIIA:1, and imports from Knossos, Palaikastro,
Kythera, the mainland and the Levant also bear witness to the importance of the site. While rooms with floor
deposits are virtually non-existent, pits and dumps dominated the material from the two periods. In the LM
IIIA:1 period as much as 86% of the pottery came from such deposits. The detailed study of the pottery supple-
mented by minor observations concerning building technique showed that the LM II period to a large extent
was a continuation of the LM I period, while LM IIIA:1 became much more innovative.
The volume includes seven analytical chapters where groups of material is presented diachronically
throughout the entire excavation. This has been possible since the basic stratigraphical analyses for the forth-
coming vols. VI and VII have been completed. The material thus analysed are the pithoi, the seal devices, the
sealings and sealed documents, the invertebrates, the wild cattle, the archaeobotanical remains and the micro-
fauna.

ISSN 0586-0539
ISBN 978-91-7916-064-7
© Svenska Institutet i Athen and authors
Printed in Denmark 2016
by Narayana Press, Odder
 5

contents

Preface ………………………………………………………………….………………………………… 9
List of illustrations ………………………………………………………………….…………………… 11
Introduction by Birgitta P. Hallager and Erik Hallager ……………………………………………… 16
Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………….…………………… 20
Bibliography ………….……………………………………………………………..…………………… 22
Introduction to the LM IIIA:1 and LM II settlements by Birgitta P. Hallager and Erik Hallager … 30
The LM IIIA:1 and LM II settlements
Stratigraphy and catalogues by Birgitta P. Hallager and Erik Hallager with contributions by
Ann-Louise Schallin, Marie-Louise Winbladh, Maria Bruun-Lundgren (†), Doniert Evely, Efi
Karantzali, Evy and Ove Persson, Pernille Bangsgaard Jensen, David Reese, Helle Vandkilde,
Maria Andreadaki-Vlasaki, Anaya Sarpaki, Katerina Papayiannis and Ingo Pini
Late Minoan IIIA:1 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 34
LM IIIA:1, House I
Room A ......…........................………………………………………………….……………………… 34
Accumulated, p. 34; Floor deposit, p. 37
Room G………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
Accumulated, p. 38; Floor deposit, p. 39
Room I ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
LM IIIA:1, Southwestern Area …………………………………………………….…………………… 40
3/14, Pit C.……………………………………………………………………….……………………… 40
Δ7-Pit B ……………………………………………………………………….………………………. 41
Deposit ………………………………………………………………….……………………………… 41
LM IIIA:1, Rubbish Area North………………………………………………….……………………… 44
Dump……………………………………………………………..………………..…………………… 44
4-Pit A ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………. 46
Upper layer, p. 46; Middle layer, p. 54; Well, p. 55
LM IIIA:1, North Street ………………………………………………………………………………… 58
1st layer………………………………………………………………………...………………………… 58
22-Pit F, p. 58; 19-Dump AE, p 58; Deposits, p. 59
2nd layer ………………………………………………………………………….……………………… 60
3rd layer ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60
In the street layer, p. 60; 19-Pit AI, p. 61
LM IIIA:1, House III ……………………………………………………………..……………………… 62
Phase 2 ……………………………………………………………..………..................……………… 62
Phase 1 ……………………………………………………………..…………....................…………… 63
LM IIIA:1, Rubbish Area South ………………………………………………….....…………………… 67
12-Pit I……………………………………………………………..………….....................…………… 67
7/8-Pit A ……………………………………………………………..…………....................………… 69
6-Pit B …………………………………………………………....................…..……………………… 72
Upper layer, p. 72; Lower layer, p. 74
15-Pit E/M and 15-Pit L/N……………………………………………………..……………………… 77
15-Pit E/M, p. 77; 15-Pit L/N, p. 77
Deposits .……………………………………………………………………….……………………… 79
LM IIIA:1, Courtyard ………………………………...……………………….…………………… 80
Younger deposits ………………………………...............……………………….…………………… 80
6 Contents

Upper layer, p. 80; In/below floor, p. 82; Middle layer, p. 83; Lower layer, p. 84:
Constructions ……………………………………………………......................….…………………… 85
19-Wall 14, p. 85; 19-Wall 20, p. 85
LM IIIA:1, Rubbish Area East …………………………………………………………………………… 86
Western deposit ……………………………………………………………...................……………… 86
Eastern deposit ………………………………………………………………..……….……………… 88
Above retaining wall, p. 88: Pits dug into dump, p.88; Dump, p. 90
LM IIIA:1, South Street …………………………………………………..……………………………… 93
Younger pits ……………………………………………………………….........……………………… 93
13-Pit S, p. 93; 13-Pit P, p. 97; 18-Pit M, p. 97
Above street deposits ………………………………………………….........….……………………… 97
1st layer, p. 97; 2nd layer, p. 99; 3rd layer, p. 101; 20-Pit AB, p. 103; 4th layer
= street deposits, p. 103
Street layers ……………………………………………………………..........……………………… 104
Upper layer, p. 104; Middle layer, p. 104; Below middle layer, p. 105; Lower layer, p. 105
LM IIIA:1, House II ……………………………………………………………………………………… 109
Pits…………………………………………………………………………….........................………… 109
18-Pit O, p. 109; 18-Pit H, p. 109
Deposits ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 110
Room A ………………………………………………………………….………………….………… 111
LM IIIA:1, Rubbish Area Southeast …………………………………………………………………… 112
Uppper layer, ………………………………………………….......…………………………………… 112
Middle layer, …………………………………………………........…………………………………… 114
Lower layer……………………………………………………...........………………………………… 119
13-Pit L ………………………………………………………….....................…………………………… 120
Below 13-Pit L……………………………………………………………......………………………… 139
East of 20-Wall 6 .……………………………………………………………………………………… 140
Deposits, p. 140
The Late Minoan II period .……………………………………………………………………………… 142
LM II, House I ..........……………………………………………………………………………………… 142
Room A ................……………………………………………………………………………………… 142
Constructions, p. 142
Room G ................……………………………………………………………………………………… 143
LM II, Southwestern Area ……………………………………………………………………………… 144
Deposit 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 144
Deposit 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 144
23-Pit K/L ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 154
Deposits below 23-Pit K/L …………………………………………………………………………… 156
14-Pit K………………………………………………………………………………………………… 161
Deposit ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 162
LM II, North Street………………..……………………………………………………………………… 164
Above Street layer …………………………………………………………………………………… 164
Street layer …………………………………………………………………………………………… 166
LM II, House III ……………………………………………………………………..…………………… 167
Room A1 and Room A2 ………………………………………………………..…………………… 167
35-Wall 8 …………………………………………………………………………..…………………… 168
LM II, Dump Area ……………………………………………………………….……………………… 170
19-Wall 13………………………………………………………………………….…………………… 170
Dump …………………………………………………………………………….…………………… 170
Pit and deposit below dump …………………………………………………….…………………… 176
LM II, Rubbish Area East ………………………………………………………...…………………… 179
Deposit 1…………………………………………………………………………...…………………… 179
Deposit 2…………………………………………………………………………...…………………… 179
35-Wall 11 ………………………………………………………………………...…………………… 181
LM II, South Street ……………………………………………………………………………………… 183
Deposits ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 183
Street layers …………………………………………………………………………………………… 183
Constructions ………………………………………………………………………………………… 187
12/13-Pit P……………………………………………………………………………………………… 190
 Contents 7

LM II, House II and Rubbish Area Southeast .......………………………………………………………192

Between 20-Walls 6 & 7 ………………………………………………………….…………………… 192
Upper layer (Pit AO), p. 192; Middle layer, p. 192; Lower layer, p. 192
East of 20-Wall 7 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 193
Unstratified material ………………………………………………………………..…………………… 195
The architecture by Erik Hallager ………………………………………………….…………………… 198
The wall plaster in the LM IIIA:1 and LM II levels by Ann-Louise Schallin ……………………… 204
The Late Minoan IIIA:1 and II pottery by Birgitta P. Hallager ……………………..………………… 208
An LM IIIA:1 cup with a painted Linear A inscription by Erik Hallager …………………………… 290
Industrial activities, personal adornments and belongings by Doniert Evely………………………… 293
The terracotta figurines and the stone vases by Marie-Louise Winbladh …………….……………… 304
The obsidian of the LM IIIA:1 and LM II periods by Efi Karantzali ………………...……………… 306
General conclusions by Birgitta P. Hallager and Erik Hallager ……………………..………………… 321

Appendix
Pottery statistics by Erik Hallager …………………………………………..……………………… 324

Analytical chapters on the entire GSE material
Pithoi from the Bronze Age Settlement at Kastelli Khania by Helle Vandkilde …….…….............. 341
Seals and sealings: a general discussion of the finds by Ingo Pini…………………………………… 374
The sealed documents and sealings from the Greek-Swedish Excavations by Erik Hallager …… 383
Wild cattle at Khania by David S. Reese ……………………………………………………………… 393
The invertebrates by David S. Reese …………………………………………………………………… 396
The archaeobotanical remains from EM to LM IIIC at the Greek-Swedish Excavations
by Anaya Sarpaki …………………………………………………………………………………… 418
The microfauna from the Greek-Swedish Excavatioons by Katerina Papayiannis ………………… 447

Concordance list of inventoried finds ……………………………………………...………………… 469

Concordance list of Khania Museum numbers …………………………………….………………… 482
Index ……………………………………………………………………………….…………………… 483
418
the archaeobotanical remains from EM to LM IIIC at the
greek-swedish excavations
Anaya Sarpaki
INTRODUCTION
As the site has been excavated over several decades, and the
excavations started at a time when environmental studies were
not yet part of the research questions of the projects, the sam-
ples have been collected with different aims over time. Except
for the samples which were, indisputably, archaeobotanical
material and hand-collected, samples of soil from inside pot-
tery were kept in order to answer questions related to pottery
use.1 Unfortunately, rarely did they produce expected results.
However, as environmental study infiltrated into Minoan ar-
chaeology, some soil samples were, in addition, collected, from
contexts which needed explanation of their possible use, such
as pits, and floor samples. Samples for the early years (1971)
and up to 2001 numbered 76 samples and were rather small
in size, whereas for 2001 they increased by another 49, and
increased even more from the 2005 and 2008 excavations by
another 72 samples reaching 197 samples in total.2 In other
words, there was a marked increase over the years, but the vol-
ume of the samples is small. In the early days, samples could
be as little as 0.100 of a litre but did not exceed 20 litres for the
largest samples in 2005.
THE GOALS AND PURPOSE OF THE
ARCHAEOBOTANICAL STUDY
Our research questions involve the following issues:
• What was the range of crops consumed regarding, agricul-
ture, food (forage perhaps) and fodder?
• What was the use of rooms, as evidenced by the plant re-
mains? Where were they processing, storing, and con-
suming plants in their buildings and for what other uses
were they using plant material?
• Can the presence and/or absence of plants, as well as their
condition of preservation indicate their probable uses
and, perhaps, provide taphonomical information?
• Can agricultural practices be inferred from the archaeo-
botanical study?
• What was the relation of the site to the agricultural sys-
tems, i.e. how were crops arriving to the urban part of
Kydonia (GSE Kastelli site)?3
• Is there any indication that the human-plant relationship
changed through time from the EM to the LM IIIC? Any
difference of use of crops, and agricultural and storage prac-
tices?
Anaya Sarpaki
by
THE METHODOLOGY
Soil samples of unequal quantity, which were judged, by the
excavators, to have potential environmental data were col-
lected from 1971 onwards. The archaeobotanical material
presented in this study includes a few samples from those
early days but starts, mainly, with the organized sampling
strategy since the 2005 excavations. Due to the fact that the
early samples were mainly under a litre in volume, water
sieving (WS) was implemented, which comprised stacking
two geological sieves, one top sieve of 1 mm and the second,
lower sieve of 0.25 mm and washed under a tap, making sure
that the water pressure was low, in order not to crush deli-
cate environmental material. The material trapped within
these sieves (the coarse and the fine mesh) was sorted under
a binocular stereoscope microscope.4 Water flotation (WF)
has been undertaken on the soil samples from the 2001 exca-
vations onwards. The machine used to process this material
is known as the Siraf type, a modified version of the Ankara
machine described by French.5 The Siraf type mashine re-
mains the most widely accepted method for ‘trapping’ bio-
archaeological data6 and amongst others, archaeobotanical
material.7
CONTEXTS SAMPLED
The excavation at Kastelli Khania is, stratigraphically, a very
complicated excavation due to the continuous strata of re-
occupation within the whole Minoan period settlement, as
building programmes succeeded one another without hia-
1
The soil samples inside vases were during the first years collected and kept
in the hope that analyses (gaschromotography) might reveal the contents
of the vases.
2 This does not include samples from the Greek-Swedish-Danish Excava-
tions in 2010, 2013 and 2014, which increased even more exponentially.
3
This, as we know, is a section of the Minoan city and much more material
is awaiting publication, especially the sites of Sevah, Katre street and some
other minor sites dispersed now in the old city of Khania. The material dis-
cussed here comes from the Greek-Swedish Excavations of 1970-2008.
4 There was no residue as such and all material was sorted. This method
provides a very detailed view and is suitable for very small amounts of soil.
5 French 1971.
6 de Moulins 1996.
7 Some categories of material such as mites, insects and phytoliths, among
others, need special recovery methods, which were not applied here. Some
insects though were found and will be studied by Dr Eva Panagiotakopulu.
 The archaeobotanical remains
tuses. Therefore, during excavation, this makes the recogni-
tion of contexts and chronologies quite intricate and difficult
to interpret. It is sometimes difficult to say, for example,,
whether one is within a building, a sheltered area or in the
open-air.8
In the early years of the excavations, a main research con-
cern was to sample the soil within pottery vessels, in order to
understand their function. Other contexts were not excluded
in the early years; however, in later years, sampling was diver-
sified to include a range of sources. They could be, broadly,
grouped into the following contexts:9
Pottery/other artefact10 = 52
Pits= 12
Floors (when burning visible)= 33
Drains= 13
Hearths/ovens= 10
Dump = 1
Another major concern is the unequal data in both number
of samples and volume of processed soil between periods.
This makes comparison between periods more difficult to
interpret. The following list shows the periods present, the
number of samples and their volume:11
EM-MM IA (Prepalatial) = 11 samples (5 had seeds) = 25.35 litres
MM IB-MM II (Protopalatial) = 20 samples (11 had seeds) = 43.70 litres
MM III-LM IB (Neopalatial) = 91 samples (56 had seeds) = 44.695 litres
LM II (Monopalatial) = 13 samples (7 had seeds) = 51.1 litres
LM IIIA:1 (Monopalatial) = 9 samples (7 had seeds) = 62.7 litres
LM IIIA:2 (Final palatial) = 3 samples (2 had seeds) = 14.2 litres
LM IIIB:1 (Final palatial) = 20 samples (17 had seeds) = 164.7 litres
LM IIIB:2 (Postpalatial) = 18 samples (16 had seeds) = 73.0 litres
LM IIIC (Postpalatial) 12 samples (7 had seeds) = 26.9 litres
TOTAL = 507.345 litres
EM-MM IA
The stratigraphy and the pottery of the early phases of the
site are still under study so the very precise dating and con-
textual information is still at a preliminary stage. For these
early phases it was therefore deemed necessary to place the
results under such a broad grouping, with a view to reach at
least a preliminary understanding of the use of plants and
agricultural pursuits, and in due course to refine any inter-
pretations.
Out of the 11 samples from this period, unfortunately, only
four had archaeobotanical remains, and a fifth belonging,
probably, to the transitional period (EM/MM IA) (Table 1).
These came from only 23.35 litres of soil. Sample 11 in Table
1 (transitional EM-MM IA) was the most interesting, due to
the wider range of plants it contained, and yet it was derived
from only two litres of soil.12
There seems to have been a balance between olive (Olea
sp.) and grape (Vitis vinifera L.). The ubiquity of figs (Ficus
carica), which will be visible in later periods, is already evi-
dent in this early period.13 Almond (Prunus communis L.),14
as expected, was well established, as well as lentils (Lens
419
culinaris) and other legumes but barley (Hordeum sp.) was
unexpectedly absent, whereas wheat had a slight presence in
its by-product form (Triticum glume base).15 More samples
are needed in order to arrive at more conclusive and sound
observations on agricultural and dietary practices, as this pic-
ture is the result of poor data, in that each soil sample is only
10 litres or much less. Therefore the results are indicative of
what was collected and when more soil is processed the more
the chances of preservation increase.16
MM IB-MM II
The Middle Minoan is represented by 20 samples but only
11 samples (43.70 litres) contained seeds. (Tables 2, 3). As
before, the olive, the grape, the fig, the almond and lentil
are present. Change is reflected in that barley (Hordeum sp.
hulled) is present in fair numbers whereas wheat (Triticum
sp.) is elusive, except for its by-product. This seems to con-
tinue the trend visible in the previous period, an issue which
needs further clarification, as it might not be only due to ac-
cidental preservation. It is also the first slight appearance of
pea (Pisum sp.) and horsebean (Vicia faba), cultivars which
need water.17 It could be indicative of a greater emphasis on
the cultivation of pulses, and in this particular case a pulse
which needs special tending and irrigation? The clarification
of whether there was a greater or lesser amount of pulse cul-
tivation is an issue which might be answered when more sam-
ples are collected. An increase in pulse cultivation, especially
the low-labour pulses, and the species cultivated in dry ag-
ricultural regimes might indicate agricultural intensification,
8 In cases of doubt whether an inside room or an open area, the phrase
“space” has been used through the publications.
9
In addition to the contexts mentioned three samples were hand-collected
and four had contexts other than the ones mentioned.
10
For example a grindstone, a lamp and a clay plate.
11 Archaeobotanists conventionally measure soil samples and seed finds
in litres (volume), not in weight, as weight can be affected by the quan-
tity of stones in a given sample, whereas volume is more ’comparable’. We
consider a litre of water as equal to a litre of soil for conventional reasons,
so where samples had been weighed in the past, we translated 1,000 grams
as 1 litre.
12 It shows that density of archaeobotanical material , and not volume alone,
is a very important consideration.
13 Follieri 1982; Sarpaki 1999, 102 (figs from the site of Amygdalokefali,
Sternes, Akrotiri, Khania).
14 It has, also, been found from Early Neolithic levels at Knossos (Sarpaki
2013) but as they are all fragmented, and it is impossible at this stage to
say whether they belong to the domesticated almond and/or to the wild
and spontaneous Amygdalus webbii Spach. The samples from Khania, most
probably, come from the domesticated species, Amygdalus communis L.
It does comprise Prunus amygdalis Batsch and/or Prunus dulcis (Miller)
D.A.Webb (Zohary et al. 2012).
15
Samples are rather few but could it be some indication of a wetter cli-
mate (EM II) (Moody 2014, 27). Barley needs less water for its growth than
wheat, therefore, an early emphasis on wheat agriculture might possibly be
indicative of a more precipitative climate(?).
16 As these levels are under study at present, it is impossible, as yet, to dis-
cuss contexts to any satisfactory degree.
17 Impressions of fava were also found in a mud-brick dated LM III (80-AR
012, GSE III, 286) so its infrequency might be apparent rather than true. At
the Manousogianaki plot at Kastelli Khania – in the same town – five seeds
of Vicia faba (Follieri 1982, 138 and fig. 2) were found dated to LM IIIB(?).
I have not seen them.
420 Anaya Sarpaki
Fig. 1. West corner of LM I House I Room E, a storeroom with a
series of products ready for consumption. The jar filled with spe-
cies of legumes, 73-P 0749 (Sample 1), is the one seen in front of
the pithos 77-P 1395 (Sample 2). The large jar in the lower right
corner is 74-P 0218 (Sample 3). Wine was stored in this room and
in some vases grapes and figs were found together (Table 4), and
this combination may perhaps reinforce the probability that figs
were used to sweeten the wine. The distribution of samples are
found on Fig. 4. Excavation photo 1973. Facing NE.
which could be due to several factors, such as population in-
crease and/or shortage of agricultural land.
MM III-LM IB (Figs. 1, 4 and Tables 4–15)
This is a better-studied period, archaeobotanically, as the
number of samples taken from this period increased marked-
ly to 91; however only 56 contained seeds. The collected earth
only represent a volume of 44.695 litres.18 The good preserva-
tion of archaeobotanical material found in a jar (Sample 1 in
Table 4 and Fig. 1 ) (2,855 g)19 portrays what we might have
lost in other contexts, due to inadequate organic preservation
at the site. The several species of legumes demonstrates the
variety of crops that were used and to what extent the grow-
ers diversified their cultivation. Present were dwarf chickling
(Lathyrus cicera/sativus), Spanish vetchling (L. clymenum),
Cyprus vetch (cf. L. ochrus), flax (Linum usitatissimum),
coriander (Coriandrum sativum), pear (Pyrus sp.) common
mallow (Malva sylvestris), and myrtle (Myrtus sp.). The first
appearance is made of wheat/emmer grains (Triticum sp. cf.
dicoccum),20 weeds (Sherardia arvensis, Gramineae), and
garlic (cf. Allium sativum). The presence of coriander and
garlic perhaps, makes us wonder whether it was used, in
the jar, as an insect repellent. Coriander was, also, found at
Akrotiri stored with crops21 and interpreted as such.22
In LM I House IV we have a clear example that seeds
(Hordeum, sp.) were stored in pithoi at the first floor (Table
9, Samples 28 and 35). These pithoi had due to the destruc-
tion of the building fallen from the first floor and some seeds
from the broken pithoi had fallen on to the floor of the room
where they were found (Table 10, Sample 40). Here the ar-
chaeobotanical material had spilt, so to speak. In the Neo-
palatial period archaeobotanical data generally turned up
where one would have expected them: floors, hearths/ovens,
inside large storage containers (in situ), in drains23 and in ar-
eas which would have been affected by fire.
Christakis has estimated that House I at Kastelli Khania
had an overall pithos capacity of 1,200–2,000 litres but it is
difficult to see how he came to this conclusion.24 The fact that
Linear A and other administrative documents were found in
the Houses alludes, probably, to a level of private adminis-
tration which is, so far, unattested for the LM I period, but
possibly identified by Hallager25 at Khania and Schoep in the
MM II (Quartier Mu) at Malia26 and which might have been
more widespread than noted to date.
LM II (Table 16)
Thirteen soil samples were retrieved for environmental study
18
Only the 27 litres were water-floated, whereas the others (24.46 litres)
were wet sieved by using a stack of two brass sieves with apertures of 1.0
mm and 0.25 mm. It is interesting to note that although samples are small,
the density of archaeobotanical material within them is not low and could
be comparable even to the larger water-floated samples. This is an issue
which needs to be tackled elsewhere. However, the coarse and the fine resi-
due are more time-consuming to sort but represent a high density of bio-
archaeological material.
19 The 2,855 g has been converted to litres, giving the total of 44.695 litres
for the Neopalatial period.
20
Previously only by-products were found.
21 Panagiotakopulu et al. 1995.
22 Panagiotakopulu et al. 1995; Levinson & Levinson 2009.
23
There we would have expected to find mainly mineralized archaeobotani-
cal and other finds.
24
Christakis 2011, 250. It is difficult to see the evidence on which his cal-
culations were based as the pithoi had not been restored and there was no
way for him to know the number of pithoi. It must have been a first work-
ing hypothesis of his. Moreover, an interesting fact is that pithoi were also
stored in the upper floors in the Neopalatial period (Vandkilde this vol-
ume), so they must not have been well-preserved, and, therefore, elusive.,
The present study by Helle Vandkilde should be consulted when it comes to
discussions about storage in the GSE, as no other calculation can be valid.
The other factor to keep in mind when dealing with pithoi is their long life.
They, generally, outlive the generation which made them (information from
ethnographic work on Crete) for various reasons, such as their high price
(they are sometimes mentioned in dowries in Crete) and the fact that they
do not travel far due to their weight, but are sometimes made to order by
travelling potters.
25 Suggested as a possibility in Hallager 2001 and discussed in more detail
by the same author in the present volume, p. 391-392.
26 Schoep 2002. On the other hand, sealing containers could have been rou-
tinely done for some produce in order to preserve the contents from spoil-
ing, i.e. reducing the oxygen which spoils organic remains as it allows bac-
teria and other organisms to multiply. It is true that other materials could
have been used for the same purposes such as dough and/or wax.
 The archaeobotanical remains
from the LM II levels but only in seven were seeds present
(Table 16). Although their number is small, the quantity of
water-floated soil is 51.1 litres.
House III and South Street
Three samples which represent 46 litres of soil were water
floated27 and although the density of seeds is not high, at least
it provides a good insight into which plants were utilized. Ar-
boriculture is represented by the presence of Vitis vinifera
(vine), Olea europaea (olive) and Ficus carica (fig). Their rel-
ative importance is impossible to estimate, at this stage, due
to the rather small number of samples, and it has been seen
from this and other periods as well that samples from within
conical cups do not, usually, contain seeds.28
The presence of agricultural products such as barley for
cereals and pulses such as Lens esculenta (lentils), Lathyrus
cicera/sativus (dwarf chickling), and Vicia faba (horsebeans)
provides an insight into consumption habits. The absence of
wheat and weeds of cultivation is rather strange in that wheat
was considered a ‘status’ cereal in an urban well-to-do settle-
ment. The reason may perhaps be explained by the fact that
the LM II and LM IIIA:1 settlements in the Agia Aikaterini
Square were squatter habitations.
LM IIIA:1 (Tables 17–18)
There are nine samples which represent this level, two of
which did not contain seeds or were kept for chemical anal-
ysis, due to their texture, colour or both. The following soil
samples are those that had been analysed (Tables 17–18) and
their total quantity is 62.7 litres.
House III (Table 17)
Phase 1 and phase II of the house have not produced different
crops but the finds rather indicate an agricultural continuum.
Olive is present only in fragmented form so we can surmise
that it could be the remnants of olive oil extraction and proba-
bly fuel.29 Grape is hardly present (1 small fragment) but both
almond and figs were consumed. The fact that mineralized figs
are the most numerous, might perhaps indicate that they were
remnants of dried figs.30 This possibility needs further research.
As we would expect from a house context, there is a
balance between pulses and cereals used in the household.
Legumes are represented by lentils, dwarf chicklings and
fragmented legumes, probably processed into split legumes
in order to eliminate their testa which hold most of the tox-
ins that produce lathyrism. Moreover, the fragmented leg-
umes, commonly called ‘fava’ in Greece, in addition to mak-
ing them toxin free, have also the benefit of cooking faster
and, therefore, needing less fuel for their preparation, which
would have been an important factor to consider for prehis-
toric societies in particular, and indeed, for any society.
Regarding cereals, the emphasis, in both phases, is on
hulled barley but in phase I as preservation seems to be bet-
421
ter, – indicated by the presence of a weed, common mallow,
(Malva sp.) together with fragmented pulses and cereals –
whereas ‘trampled on’/damaged seeds are more numerous in
phase II. Taken together with other archaeological material,
it could contribute some information on the taphonomy of
the level, i.e. more exposure to elements and or trampling
and other factors that affect the preservation on the site..
The rubbish areas (Table 18)
Archaeobotanical material was found in the rubbish areas
south, southeast and east. Generally speaking dumps provide
evidence of missing puzzles, in that they contain discarded
material which can provide evidence of absence, so to speak.
Arboriculture is the same in the rubbish areas, i.e. grape, figs
and almonds are presen, but there is an unexpected absence
of the olive. In the case that olives were used as fuel, it would
have been dumped only when burnt to ash perhaps and, con-
sequently, left no macrofossil plant remains, except for phy-
toliths which have not been sampled for.
However, for a dump, we have a wealth of information on
other crops which were also cultivated such as emmer wheat,
whole grains of barley, and broomcorn millet (Panicum mil-
iaceum)31 which is extremely rare on southern Greek sites,32
and even evidence of cereal weeds, Lolium sp. (ryegrass). At
this stage, as millet has only been found in minute quanti-
ties, it is impossible to say whether it was cultivated or was
present as a weed. Contaminants (weeds) though are, how-
ever, evidence of previous or nearby cultivation.
27 Samples outside House III only represent another 5.1 litres of soil.
28 Generally speaking open vessels could trap soil from all around the area,
unless incrustations are visible.
29 When olive stones are systematically fragmented into small fragments, it
could not just be due to trampling and normal breakage. Normal trampling
would be indicated by breakage along the sutures, or, at most, in quarters.
As the stone is rather hard, other types of fragmentation needs to be
attributed to deliberate crushing as in oil extraction. In some contexts, the
only archaeobotanical material found were fragments of olive stones. Their
preservation could only be due to their being charred in a prior stage to
burial – if the context had been exposed to fire – other archaeobotanical re-
mains would have been found in the same sample (Braadbaart et al. forth.).
30
My personal hypothesis is based on the fact that dried figs have concen-
trated sugars to a level that preserves the seeds from bacterial attack. This
issue though needs further research and clarification but it is an issue which
crops up frequently. This is perhaps the reason that we often, at least in
Greece, find mineralized fig seeds together with charred fig seeds and they,
probably, belong to the same context horizon, and might not be intrusions
from different contexts. Another mineralization process would be burial in
standing water or cess pits but in this case all seeds and finds would have
been mineralized, which is not the case for this particular sample.
31 In ancient Greek it was mentioned as ‘κέγχρος’.
32
The early finds of broomcorn millet all come from northern Greece (Val-
amoti 2009; 2013) but seems to move south in the Bronze Age. It is impos-
sible at this stage to say whether it did come to Crete from the north or
the west, such as from Italy. See a discussion of millet finds in Livarda &
Kotzamani 2014, 11, where the possible earliest find so far, seems to be from
Zominthos (Neopalatial) (pending C14 dating) whereas a Postpalatial find
was identified at Quartier Nu, Malia (Sarpaki 2007).
422
LM IIIA:2 (Table 19)
Only three samples have been collected from two buildings
but only two have seeds and represent 14.2 litres. Unfortu-
nately the sample from Building 1 is very small and only a
legume fragment has been noted. Building 2, Room B, has
produced evidence whose absence, rather than presence, is
interesting, such as olive. It is also notable to say that the by-
products of barley (rachis) could indicate a crop-processing
area and storage of not totally processed (cleaned) crop, or
else might point to the storage of whole ears of cereal, includ-
ing barley. One small sample is too few to draw conclusions
at this stage.
LM IIIB:1 (Tables 20–22)
Twenty samples represent this period but only three have no
seeds. Preservation is not good in Building 1 but nevertheless
provided some interesting insights into the existence of flax
(Linum usitatissimum) as well as fragmented olive stones. Pit
U contained a large sunken tripod jar which contained re-
mains of olive fragments (GSE IV, 43–46) and the fact that
no other archaeobotanical remains were found, perhaps in-
dicates the use of this pit for the storage of fuel(?).33 From
the storage pit in Room A cereals (indeterminate) were
retrieved, ignota (unknown) mineralized seeds and Linum
(flax). It is possible that this pit had standing water(?) for
some time which is indicated by the presence of mineralized
material. The pit contained many sea urchin spines (GSE IV,
43).
Building 2 has a wider spectrum of archaeobotanical ma-
terial (Table 22) but also many damaged seeds (probably
trampled). The species though are the same as in previous
periods, so we could claim that agricultural pursuits had not,
radically, changed. In Room A were found many remains of
figs in both mineralized and charred forms, and also charred
fruit fragments. The absence of wheat is here again noted.
LM IIIB:2 (Fig. 2 and Table 23–24)
Eighteen samples were collected from this chronological
stratum (Table 23–24) but only 16 had seeds. They were re-
trieved from 73.0 litres of soil. What was discarded in antiq-
uity did not necessarily get preserved, unless it had been in
contact with some form of fire, such as the charred remnants
of cooking, i.e. dwarf chickling (L. cicera/L. sativus) and
other heavily-burnt seeds. The levelling layer could also be
the product of refuse discard and this material might have
had contact to charring. Interesting information is revealed
from the two ovens (Building 1, Courtyard F and Building
2, Room A) (Tables 23–24) whereby most of the archaeobo-
tanical remains are cereals, namely barley (Hordeum vulgare
–hulled) and wheat. The wheat is of two species of glume
wheats, einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and emmer (Triti-
cum dicoccum), as well as free-threshing wheat (Triticum cf.
aestivum grain) which has, only been identified once.34 Their
survival, in the oven found in Courtyard F (Fig. 2) provides
Anaya Sarpaki
Fig. 2. The oven in Courtyard F after the excavation in 1980. Fac-
ing north.
information on crop processing as well as on storage. Five
samples were collected from the oven but, unfortunately,
they are all exceptionally small, and yet two had an excep-
tionally high density of archaeobotanical remains. It seems
that these ovens were also used to parch figs, probably after
drying them, and also cereals such as wheat and barley, in a
piecemeal fashion, probably when they were still in their ears.
Storage information
The presence of spikelet forks, glume bases, of mainly ein-
korn but emmer too, as well as barley rachis and awns of both
barley and wheat, all indicate that these were stored in the
spikelets, which was previously believed to have been the
norm for wet areas.35 It has been shown by several research-
ers36 that cereals were sometimes stored in the spikelets, even
in dry areas (Egypt, Syria, Turkey).37 This is the first instance
of storage of glume cereals and hulled barley in the spikelets
33 It perhaps indicates pre-charred olive pomace as no other archaeobotani-
cal material has been found in the sample, a factor which could indicate that
the organic materials in Pit U had not been submitted to charring. Reflect-
ance (%Ro) studies need to be conducted on the olive fragments in order
to measure the level of heat to which they had been submitted (Braadbaart
et al. forth.) and temperatures around 400 ° C could indicate this process.
34 It most probably got trapped in this sample as there is no need to parch
naked wheats.
35 Hillman 1981 (a & b) and 1984. As far as we know, no crop has been
found stored in their spikelets in Crete and in the south of Greece. In the
North of Greece, this was found at Assiros Toumba in the Bronze Age
(Jones 1981 & 1987). It is interesting to see though that at sites such as
Kastanas and Mandalo (Bronze Age) (wetter areas) glume wheat finds ac-
companied large numbers of spikelet forks (Valamoti 2009, 200) and thus
too would have probably been stored as spikelets.
36 Nesbitt & Samuel 1996; Hald & Charles 2008; Graham & Smith 2013;
Halstead 2014.
37 Assiros Toumba (Jones 1981 & 1987) is not a dry area site as suggested
by Hillman (1984).
 The archaeobotanical remains
from Crete and southern Greece.38 However, this cannot be
accepted as evidence of the absence of the procedure else-
where as, it is known that preservation of archaeobotanical
remains on the island has not been satisfactory.39 Informa-
tion on the variability of storage behaviour still awaits study
of more data throughout Crete and elsewhere in southern
Greece.
Crop processing
Information provided from the oven in Courtyard F also pro-
vides the signature of a crop-processing stage. Before reach-
ing the oven, plant material travelled. After harvest, thresh-
ing40 would break the ears of the glume wheats as well as
barley into individual spikelets, each containing grains still
enveloped in their husks. Most of the rachis and spikelet
forks, awns, as well as culms would have been extracted near
the threshing area. The plant finds of some by-products of
glume wheats and hulled barley41 in the oven, can be inter-
preted in various ways. A no-longer applicable assumption
is that these crops were parched in the oven as spikelets be-
fore being dehusked on a saddle-quern. It was previously
believed that parching rendered the chaff/husks brittle and
made processing (dehusking), such as releasing the grains
from their glumes, easier and faster.42 Ethnographic work,
though, provides alternative explanations which need to be
considered and excluded, where necessary, in order to inves-
tigate and enrich the detailed spectrum of crop processing in
archaeology. When dehusking by saddle-quern, ethnographic
work43 has shown that, in both dry and damp areas, parch-
ing does not necessarily facilitate the removal of husks. Meu-
rers-Balke and Lüning from their work on the agriculture of
the Linear Bandkeramik, as well as from their experimen-
tal work concerning the processing of glume wheats, came
to the conclusion that a drying process immediately before
dehusking was ‘superfluous’ and therefore not necessary.44
They saw dehusking not as a seasonal task but they believe
it was part of ‘daily chores connected with preparing meals’.
Others too45 believe that dehusking was probably done, in a
piecemeal fashion, throughout the year, as need arose. Dry-
ing is believed to have been conducted before storage and
not before dehusking and served only to preserve the grain
from trapped humidity and should have been applied on a
large scale immediately after threshing.46 This, in the Medi-
terranean – due to the weather – would have been the norm,
and done on a large scale. So far, no structure – oven – of
that scale, which could have held large quantities of crop, has
been identified at the GSE. It is therefore logical to assume
that sun-drying was practised. The roofs of houses47 might
have been a safe area to spread the crops after threshing, as
they would have been clean and protected from vermin (e.g.
rodents).
As an added precaution, glume wheats and hulled barley
seem to have been stored in their spikelets, as this would have
protected them from mould stimulated by humidity and/or
insect attack, and thus provided longer viability. Therefore,
according to the latest experiments why were ovens found
with by-products of dehusking? The spikelets might have
423
been dried in the oven before dehusking, not to facilitate it
as mentioned above, but to, probably, harden the grain and
make milling easier. This could have taken place just before
short-term storage and/or before immediate consumption
(extracting glume bases, spikelet forks, barley rachis, awns)
and transforming the crop to groats and/or flour.
It has been shown that had shallow mortars been used for
dehusking, such as are found in Egypt,48 spikelets needed
dampening before pounding, as it has two benefits. Firstly,
spikelets stick together and thus rub against each other al-
lowing the freeing of the grain which mostly remains intact,
and secondly, water softens the chaff and renders it pliable,
allowing the whole grain to pop out ‘of the unshattered spike-
let’. However, experimentally dehusking spikelets in tall, nar-
row wooden mortars did not require any moistening;49 on the
contrary, a maximum rate of dehusking was reached after
pre-heating to 150–200° C.50 In the experiments two mortar
types were used, a tub-mortar and a solid narrow tree-trunk
mortar.51 It was concluded that the narrow tree-trunk mortar
was ‘clearly much more effective than the improvised tub-
mortar’.
When the efficiency of the saddle-quern and the wooden
mortar is compared for dehusking, it has been concluded ex-
perimentally that the wooden mortar is superior as it produc-
es dehusked grain in less time52 and the yield of grain is 53%
with the saddle-quern versus 94% with the wooden mortar.
The saddle-quern produces, as well, a high amount of cracked
grain as opposed to a low amount in the wooden mortar, thus
increasing the loss of grain with the admixture of husks, espe-
cially when it comes to sieving the crop from the by-product.
38 Another barley sample, which will be published in GSE VI forth. and
dated to the Neopalatial period, was hand-collected during excavation and
classified as charcoal (05-MISC 055) but it also contained barley chaff frag-
ments. This strengthens the view of their storage in spikelets.
39
Livarda & Kotzamani 2014.
40 Threshing would have been, most probably, done outdoor on a large scale
as no straw, and few culm bases and nodes have been found in the oven
or in any other sample, so far. Threshing floors seem to have made their
appearance in the MBA (Kardulias & Yerkes 1996) in Mesopotamia (Old
Babylon text) dated to c. 2000 BC and LBA from Akrotiri, Thera as it is
believed to have been depicted on the miniature fresco of the West House
(Sarpaki 2000).
41 These are barley rachis, wheat spikelet forks, glumes, culms, and a high
percentage of awns.
42
Fenton (1978, 37) though for the Orkneys and Shetland provides other
explanations for parching which are worth considering, such as drying a
crop which was harvested slightly unripe. Another reason was to make malt
for brewing and a third was to harden grain for milling. The first two rea-
sons could not apply to our samples as none of the grain seemed unripe, nor
were signs of germination present on the grain/embryos. The third reason
might have applied.
43 Nesbitt et al. 1996, 237.
44 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 357.
45 Hillman 1981 (a & b); 1984; Jones 1987; Sigaut 2003.
46 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992.
47 At Khania all houses seem to have had flat roofs.
48 Shown in Nesbitt & Samuel 1996, 52 and fig 5, 53.
49 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 352.
50 Although einkorn was seen to be dehusked more easily than emmer and
spelt (Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 352), the conclusion was empirical
but was not annotated in detail during the experiments.
51 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 352, fig. 9.
52 Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 356. It can dehusk 1 kg in 40 minutes
versus 50 minutes with the saddle-quern.
424 Anaya Sarpaki
Due to this factor, it was calculated that 26% is effectively
lost on saddle-querns, whereas there was no loss in the wood-
en mortar.53 In the archaeobotanical material one would ex-
pect to find a high ratio of intact rachis segments and spikelet
forks as well as whole grains. Unfortunately, our samples are
not large and numerous enough to allow us such an accurate
observation.
Regarding the time needed for a family of five persons
with a daily need of five kg of cereal, if they processed with
the more suitable wooden mortar, some 1.5 kg could be de-
husked within an hour. It meant that over three hours would
be needed, not including the cleaning (sieving) process after-
wards and the parching as a possible prior treatment.
Therefore, it is not yet conclusive, but we could suggest
that dehusking was, probably, conducted with a wooden mor-
tar and might have been pre-heated to c. 200° C. Unfortu-
nately, these artefacts would rarely be ‘visible’ in archaeo-
logical sites in Greece, due to the climatic conditions which
generally preclude their preservation, but their existence is
indirectly indicated.
The presence of a free-threshing wheat grain (Triticum cf.
aestivum) indirectly informs us of the use of this cereal too.
Its chance of survival in the archaeobotanical record is very
low, as this wheat does not need the use of fire for its crop
processing, and, therefore, its chances of being incorporated
in a fire are even more reduced. Therefore, its low-level pres-
ence does not necessarily provide an accurate indicator of its
rarity. In other words, it might have been much more com-
monly cultivated and consumed than the archaeobotanical
data prescribe.
We should always keep in mind the conditions and the
chances of preservation of archaeobotanical remains, when
interpretation is involved and, in this case, the chance of
finding free-threshing cereals is far less than glume cereals.
Plants which need the use of fire for their processing have a
far greater chance of survival.
The low-level presence of olive (Olea sp.) is rather unex-
pected, as in other instances it has been seen to be used as
fuel.54 Therefore, we can either assume that in this particular
case, the fuel had been burnt to ash and, therefore, has been
lost, or else wood instead had been used as fuel (Table 23,
Samples 3–7).55
Legumes are chance finds as these would not need to be
processed in an oven. Lathyrus cicera/sativus, and other le-
gumes whose features have not been preserved together with
Vicia faba, horsebean, which is a water-loving and a garden
crop are found together which would indicate mixed crops/
contexts. Flax (Linum sp.) could also be planted in dry-farm-
ing but also in irrigated fields. Schoenus nigricans (black bog-
rush) which is a wild plant, would become established only in
wet areas/wetlands and would, therefore, indirectly, indicate
the existence of such areas in the wider Khania area.
In Building 2, Room A, another oven described as a
‘kouskouras structure’ was excavated where amongst few
archaeobotanical remains (Table 24) some mineralized
seeds of fig (Ficus carica) were identified. They were not
charred so, perhaps, it alludes to the habit of drying figs in
the ovens, something similar to the ethnographically-ob-
served method of preparing figs, by drying them in the sun
and then placing them in the oven.56 This process evapo-
rates all the moisture in the fruit, leaving behind only the
sugars which act as a preservative to the fruit and do not
allow bacteria to break it down. The heating would also kill
any insects which might have survived within the fig fruit. If
the ‘kouskouras environment’ is alkaline,57 the chances of
finding charred remains of plants are minimal, if not non-
existent, and certainly all charred fig remains would have
been reduced to extreme fragmentation and, thus, would
have escaped identification.
Unfortunately, few remains of storage were uncovered
from this period, although houses were spacious and one
would have expected far more space devoted to storage. This,
in itself, has important implications for the organization of
the economic structure of the wealthy sector of the society
and its connection to the agricultural base and/or to its in-
volvement in agricultural pursuits.
LM IIIC (Table 25–26)
Twelve samples can be dated to these levels. Building 1 has
six samples of which only two had seeds and Building 2, has
three samples of which two had archaeobotanical (seed)
material. Only 26.9 litres of soil were either water-floated or
water-sieved.
The Courtyard outside Building 1 and 2 (Table 26) pro-
duced another three samples with archaeobotanical material.
Unfortunately though, although six hearths and one oven are
shown to be represented in this period (GSE II, 130, fig. 29,
shows eight hearths, however the two in Parodos Kanevaro
are not included in the present GSE publication) no samples
had been collected from these contexts.58 The existing mate-
rial is small in quantity, and it does not indicate any changes.
An observation made (GSE II, 128) is that, with the ex-
ception of Room O in Building 1, in all rooms where most
of the floor was preserved, there was evidence of fire instal-
lations. A second observation is that these were generally
situated at the centre of the rooms.59 This observation alone
could imply a gradual cooling of the weather in the later peri-
ods compared to the Prepalatial and palatial periods. Moody
mentions that c. 1200 BC would have seen cold and dry con-
ditions in the Aegean and claims that the period c. 1350–900
53
Meurers-Balke & Lüning 1992, 357.
54 Braadbaart et al. forth.
55 It would be interesting to compare notes with the anthracologist at some
point to see what kind of wood has been identified so as to have a more
in-depth understanding of fuel curation. This would clarify, indirectly, the
availability of vegetation around the Khania site.
56 Figs would need to be sun-dried first and then dried in an oven at a low
and even temperature at c. 60° C. This would kill all insects and larvae.
57 Although alkalinity was measureable, at the time of excavation, it was
not then known that its presence could affect the archaeobotanical remains.
Publications of these studies are quite recent (Braadbaart et al. 2009).
58 In further research, if we find charcoal samples mixed with seeds, then
it might be possible to research more into the function of these ovens. For
a thorough discussion on hearths and ovens at Khania and elsewhere in
Crete, see GSE II, 128-129.
59 GSE II, 128, n. 7 it is asserted that this is also the case for all rooms exca-
vated in Building 2.
 The archaeobotanical remains
Fig. 3. The shallow, wide-mouthed tripod cooking pot 05-P 1115
(Sample 12, Table 26).
BC “was a time of very unstable climate in the Aegean”.60
Extreme weather events such as floods and droughts would
have disrupted cropping cycles.
The sampling was not sufficient, in the early years of exca-
vation, to reveal the true nature of agriculture of this period,
as most samples except for one61 (Table 25, Sample 8) were
very small. What seems interesting as possible indicators of
the nature of the agriculture are the half olive stone found
in the oven area in Building 1 Room M (Table 25, Sample 4)
and the olive fragments in Sample 8. Their presence could
corroborate, what was hypothesized all along, that is that the
by-products of olive were used as fuel in LM IIIC too. The
other fruit such as the fig, the grape and the almond were, of
course, present but there is no possibility of knowing their
relative importance. No cereals of the naked variety were
identified in any of the samples. The glumed cereals such as
hulled barley (Hordeum sp.),62 and einkorn (Triticum mono-
coccum) did not arrive in a clean state at the site but were
still enveloped – probably – in their glumes as in the LM
IIIB:2 period. The greater presence of wheat (Triticum) does
not necessarily imply its greater presence in this building as
we do not have large enough samples to make such a claim.
Sample 12 (05-P 1115 – tripod cooking pot, Fig. 3)63 where
two grape (Vitis) fragments were found,64 could indicate
some kind of a grape preparation, such as grape molasses,
‘petimezi’, as this pottery shape encourages liquid evapora-
tion, which is what exactly needs to take place when prepar-
ing molasses.
The co-existence of grape and fig in pithos 2 (80-P 1636)
(Table 25, Sample 3),65 if they represent a palimpsest, could
imply wine, perhaps ‘sweetened’ with fig.66 The mineralized
preservation of the fig seed indicates its deposition in a wet
environment for enough time to have turned this organic
substance into inorganic material.
EPILOGUE
Due to the small volume of the samples, it is pointless to un-
dertake statistical analysis to attempt to understand trends
425
in agricultural pursuits. The impression is that there were ag-
ricultural choices which became established fairly early and
probably in the Prepalatial period which seem to resist time,
i.e. are robust, and continue unaltered up to LM IIIC. Cultiva-
tion of tree crops such as the olive, the almond and the fig was
evident since EM. The vine was also present. Pulses, as well as
cereals, were also cultivated in more or less equal ratios, one
would believe, but there is an emphasis on the use of dwarf
chickling (Lathyrus cicera)/grass pea (Lathyrus sativus)67 and
lentil (Lens culinaris), and, as regards cereals, hulled barley68
(Hordeum vulgare 6-row hulled). As for wheats, the more
‘visibly’ present are the glume wheats, einkorn and emmer,
but the extremely rare visibility of naked wheats, is, we be-
lieve, a product of preservation and taphonomy, and, there-
fore, at this stage, it is impossible to know the ratio of naked
to hulled wheats that the inhabitants consumed. Surely more
naked wheat than is visible must have been cultivated even in
this period. However, the lack of finds of naked wheat rachis,
whether tetraploid and/or hexaploid, perhaps strengthens
the hypothesis of bulk threshing away from the settlement,
even in the early EM period and suggests an urban character
to the settlement of Kydonia (Khania) from an early period.
A few by-products of glume wheat and hulled barley have
been identified on floors or in pottery and these may indi-
cate that these products arrived at the site not thoroughly
cleaned. This could be a status indicator of the inhabitants
in Prepalatial and early palatial phases and could, probably,
imply a stronger participation of the inhabitants in the agri-
cultural chores, storage behaviour and/or proximity to fields
in those periods.
In the Neopalatial period, the sample found in jar 73-P
0749 (Table 4, Sample 1) provides an insight into the impres-
sive variety of pulses and indicates the large spectrum of spe-
cies that they cultivated and mixed: seven or more species
of legumes are represented. This could be taken as evidence
of their wide cultivation as well as intensification of agricul-
60
Moody 2005 & 2014.
61 Even this at 11 litres was not really sufficient although contexts at GSE
are rather small and very often the amount of soil that can be retrieved is
limited.
62 Imprints of Hordeum were noted in the LM IIIB:2 terracotta tray 80-AR
003, cf. GSE III, 82.
63 The vessel, which is unusual in this shape (shallow and very wide-
mouthed) and could well have functioned for the preparation of sauces/
liquids which needed rapid evaporation of their water content in order to
turn them into thick sauces/mollasses(?).
64
This is suggested with great reservation.
65 See Vandkilde, Fig. 31, this volume.
66 Fig (Ficus carica) contains cadalene (1,6-dimenthyl-4-isopropyl-naph-
thalene) an aromatic compound (Beck et al. 2008, 19). It might be worth,
perhaps, analysing a sherd from the pithos in order to examine any organic
material which might have remained within the pores of the pottery and
test this possibility, i.e. the mixing of grape wine with figs. However, ancient
Egyptians made fig wine (Darby et al. 1977, 615-666). Remarks published
by Hallager (2002, 67) in conjunction with the archaeobotany are very in-
teresting, whereby the lid of the pithos has been identified and it had an
imprint of a vine leaf, perhaps indicating the content of the pithos itself.
67 It is impossible at this stage to differentiate the two on morphological
grounds but it is rather a decision based on their size. These pulses at GSE
were not numerous enough to make a statistical estimation.
68 We are not sure whether Hordeum distichum (2-row barley) was present,
as not many rachis that could be positively identified were located.
426 Anaya Sarpaki
ture without needing to keep fields fallow.69 The rotation of
crops with pulses, instead of leaving fields fallow, would have
allowed the fertilization of their fields by planting legumes
which would have provided nitrogen and the green parts
(leaves, roots etc.) could have been ploughed in, to provide
more nutrients to the soil. This strategy would have been ex-
pected when there was a shortage of fields, a growing popula-
tion and, in general, a need for increasing productivity in a
given area.
The by-products though of cereal processing found in the
oven structures in Postpalatial contexts seem to have been
of a totally different nature and further convey information
on crop processing, which is not only indicative of a stage
of processing but also of a technology of processing. Crops
did not come totally cleaned from the fields, but rather the
threshed cereals were brought to be stored in their spikelets.
This, in itself, probably indicates a change of climate in Crete
and/or increased humidity. Moody argued for the possible
existence of a ‘Minoan little-Ice Age’ which might be visible
‘near the end of the Late Bronze Age’.70 More samples need
to be studied with adequate data which would allow us to
test whether the reason of this change in storage habit was
due to climatic reasons rather than cultural or other, so far,
undetectable reasons. This crop processing method should be
studied against the climatic information which we have for
this period.
According to Moody c. 1800–1650 BC winters would have
been perhaps warmer than at present71 but cooling, and rela-
tively wet,72 whereas summers were cooler but warming.
In the years 1650–1400/1300 BC especially cool winters
and increased moisture followed the Theran eruption. From
c. 1300-1200 BC both hot and dry summer and winter tem-
peratures would have exceeded those of the present. From c.
1200 BC cold and dry conditions would have prevailed again
in the Aegean. In order to evaluate archaeobotanical mate-
rial in this light, more and larger samples are needed.
Our research questions were not fully answered due to a lack
of some data; however, some questions have been partly an-
swered:
1. We have presented a range of crops which were cultivated
and consumed as food but at this stage it was impossible
to provide any information on fodder plants.
2. Due to both taphonomy and sampling, preservation of
plant remains in the buildings was rather poor, so the
archaeobotany found in the rooms needs to be exam-
ined in context with other archaeological finds in order
to decipher their use.
3. Mineralized plant remains may provide possible explana-
tions of their taphonomical environment, such as figs, Vi-
cia faba, Lathyrus cicera, and Lens in the drain of House
I (Tables 14–15). The fact that many plant remains are
mineralized reinforces the interpretation that this was a
drain, as the waterlogging of such remains replaces the
organic part with inorganic minerals.
4. It was seen that information was provided on the agricul-
tural practice of storing glume wheats and hulled barley
in their spikelets. Moreover, the possible use of pulses to
be used in rotation with cereals might have been widely
practised at Khania. The dehusking of the wheat and
barley in order to transform them into an edible prod-
uct seems to have been done in a piecemeal fashion in
the ‘urban’ buildings and would have used a fair amount
of human power and time out of the daily chores. Ex-
periments show that wooden utensils perhaps fashioned
from dug-out tree trunks would have been used for this
stage of processing but, due to preservation in Crete, no
such utensil has been preserved.
5. The crops must have been threshed and perhaps stored at
first elsewhere as the volume of storage is not enough
to provide enough storage capacity for households for
two years.73 Therefore, only medium-term and shor-term
storage seems to have been catered for. Obviously, farm-
ers must not have been distant but the produce brought
to the town had been not only threshed but also coarse-
ly sieved as none of the by-products of the crops were
found such as culm bases, pods of legumes or large weed
seeds. In LM IIIB:2 (Table 23) water-loving plants were
brought back such as a type of sedge, commonly known
as  black bog-rush (Schoenus nigricans)74 which is an in-
dicator of marshy land. This, in other geographical loca-
tions, could have indicated wetter conditions but for the
Khania area, there are indications of marshy land cre-
ated by occasional flooding of watercourses (perennial
rivers). These were dried up by planting eucalyptus trees
in areas of high water table in the late 19th century and
therefore, the area has a totally different character from
what it might have been in earlier times (see travellers).
6. There seems to have been a certain continuum regarding
the human-plant relationship, although the volume and
the number of samples does not allow an elaboration
on this impression. In the LM IIIA:1 levels, broomcorn
millet appears, indicating some form of external contact.
The question remains if this crops represents a diversifi-
cation of their diet or an immigrant population75 which
introduced new dietary habits.
69 Sarpaki 1992.
70 Moody 2000, 57.
71 Moody 2005.
72 Moody 2014, 6.
73 Generally farmers would store for two and sometimes three years in or-
der to guard against shortage.
74 In traditional Greece these rushes are often made into cheese baskets as
they are fairly delicate and cannot be made into solid containers.
75 Although no "Italian" imports were found in this period, they seem to
establish themselves in LM IIIB:1 (GSE IV, 371-372) and some product
might have already been traded before the importation of vessels.
 The archaeobotanical remains 427

Table 1. Prepalatial: EM soil samples with archaeobotanical remains and EM-MM IA transitional sample (WF 05-15)

Seed remains A8-9, Spaces Space X, Γ Upper layer Room G, trial Hole Γ7-pits and
A-C, Space A, 5-Floors 19- with B6- trench, inside deposit correspond-
within kouskou- 20, inside jar Floor 2 from stemmed bowl, ing to Γ8-Floor 7 (5th
ras structure 05-P 1250 above hearth 84-P 3224 floor), Pit D
Sample no. 2 = WF 05-55 6 =WF 05-27 7 =WF 05-05 9 11 = WF 05-15

Quantity of soil – WF 10 lt. 12 lt. 1.25 lt. 0.100 lt. 2 lt.

Quantity of sorted soil C & F = 100% C&F= C&F= C & F = 100% C & F = 100%
100% 100%
Fruits
Olea sp. frgs. 1 2
Vitis sp. frgs. 1 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 29 2
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 5
Legumes
cf. Lens sp. 1
Legume (large) 1
Legume frg. 1 1
Cereals
Triticum glume base 3
Weed
Galium sp. 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 7 2

Table 2. Protopalatial: MM soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains MM Phase MM Phase MM, Phase 3, Space A, floor MM, Phase 3a, Space A, de-
3/3a Room B, 3/3a?, Space C, deposit. 3: inside semiglobular cup posits above lower “floor”.
floor deposit, accumulated, 01-P 0755; 5: semiglobular cup 01-P 9: inside semiglobular cup
80-MISC 005 inside cup 80-P 0757; 6: conical cup 01-P 0765 01-P 0760; 10: semiglobular
0615 cup 01-P 0761
Sample no. 1 = AS* 11 2 3 5 6 9 10
Quantity of soil – WF Hand-collected 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt.
Quantity of sorted C & F = 100% C & F = 100% C&F C&F C&F= C & F = 100%
soil = 100% = 100% 100%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 1 1 1
Olea sp. frgs. 1 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 1
Legumes
Vicia faba (cotyl.) 1
Lens sp. 1
cf. Lens sp. (min.) 1
Cereals
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. 2
damaged)
Ignota
Ignota (identifiable) 1
Ignota (v. damaged) 1 1
Ignota (v. damaged) 1
min.
* The very first batch of 51 GSE soil samples which were analysed were numbered AS no. 1, 2, 3, etc. Continous water flotation
numbers were introduced in 2005.
428 Anaya Sarpaki

Table 3. Protopalatial: MM soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains MM Phase 2, Room Hole, Γ7- Hole Γ7-Floor Hole Γ8-Floor
E, floor and levelling Floor 4 + Γ8- 4 + Γ8-Floor 5 7 (5th floor), soil
deposit, inside cup Floor 5 (3rd (4th floor), soil from cleaning
01-P 0872 floor), soil floor
Sample no. 12 16 = WF 17 = WF 05-07 18 = WF 05-60
05-09
Quantity of soil-WF 0.100 lt. 20 lt. 20 lt. 3 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil C & F = 100% C&F= C & F = 100% C & F = 100%
100%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 1
Olea sp. frgs. 1 2
Ficus carica (min.) 49 1 3
Ficus carica (charred) 1
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 1
Cereals
Hordeum hulled – grain 2 1 1
Hordeum frgs. 5 3 5
Triticum spikelet fork – cf. 1
T. monococcum
Legumes
cf. Pisum 1
Legume frg. 21 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 2
Ignota (identifiable) 1

1 One is infested.
 The archaeobotanical remains 429

Table 4. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House I, Room E, floor

1 = jar 73-P 0749; 2 = pithos 77-P 1395; 3 = jar 74-P 0218; 4 = pithos 77-P 1390; 5 = jar 77-P
0864; 6=pithos 77-P 1396
Sample no. 1 = AS 22 2 3 = AS 21 4 = AS 23 5 = AS 40 6
& 24 & 43 & 47
Quantity of soil – WF # WS – # WF 0.300 lt. 0.200 lt. 0.200 lt. 0.200 lt. 1.500 lt.
2855 g
Quantity of sorted soil 1/8 C = 100%; C = 100%; F C = 100%; C = 100%; F C = 100%; F
F = 50% = 25% F = 25% = 50% = 12.5%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 3 2 1 1
Ficus carica (min.) 11+[14] 2 4

Prunus amygdalus frgs. 1

Legumes
Vicia faba var. minor 3
Lathyrus cicera/sativus
(end of pod) 628
L. cicera/sativus (mid. pod) 10901
Lathyrus cicera/sativus s.l. 22 + 23.22 g 1 1
Lens esculenta 3
cf. Lens frg. 1
Pisum sativum 20
cf. Pisum sativum 1 + 1 frg
cf. Lathyrus ochrus sp. 18
cf. Lathyrus clymenum 4
Vicia ervilia 14
Legume sp. (small) 6
Legume – type A 22
Legume – type B 8
Legume – type C 4
Legume sp. damaged 3
Cereals
Hordeum sp. hulled 1
cf. Hordeum sp. 5
Triticum/Hordeum grain frg. 4
Economic plants
cf. Coriandrum sativum frg. 1
Linum usitatissimum 2
Weeds
Bifora testiculata 24 + frgs.
cf. Bifora testiculata 282
Sherardia arvensis 2
Adonis cf. annua 17
Rumex sp. 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 1 1
Ignota (v. damaged) min.
1 2
Misc.
Mouse dung 1
1 Four (137) are infested.
2 Endocarp of Bifora.
430 Anaya Sarpaki

Table 5. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

House I, Room E, floor

Seed remains 10 = large lamp 77-P 0850; 11 = tripod cooking pot 77-P 0836; 12 = jug
77-P 0855
Sample no. 10 = AS 46 11 = AS 39 12
Quantity of soil –WF 1 lt. 2 lt. 0.500 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil C = 100%; F = 25% C = 100%; F = 6.25% C & F = 100%
Fruits
cf. Vitis sp. (min.) 3
Ficus carica (charred) 9
Ficus carica (min.) 1
cf. Ficus sp. (min.) 1
cf. Ficus sp. 11
Cereals
Cerealia sp. 1
Triticum glume base 1
Legumes
Legume frg. 1 6 1
Economic plants
Labiatae 1
Weeds
Malva sylvestris 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 11
Ignota (identifiable) 2
Misc.
Frass **
Mouse dung 1
basket (?) frg. 1

Table 6. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House I, Room D, House I, Room M, House I, Room M,

floor, inside tripod fallen, inside goblet floor, inside tripod
storage jar 76-P 0049 82-P 1429 storage jar 77-P
& storage jar 76-P 0861
0050
Sample no. 14 15 = AS 41 17
Quantity of soil – WF 0.200 lt. 0.200 lt. 0.300 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil C = 100%; F = 25% C = 100%; F = 50% C = 100%; F = 25%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 1
Ficus carica (charred) 1
cf. Ficus sp. (min.) 3
Ignota
food (?) ***
Ignota (v. damaged) 1 2

Key: * = 1 – 10 items
** = 10 – 50 items
*** = 51 – ∞
 The archaeobotanical remains 431

Table 7. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House I, Minoan Hall, Room A, constructions, 19 = House I, Room

soil sample from filled in doorway; 20 = conical cup B, construc-
05-P 0776; 21 = conical cup 05-P 1069 tions, conical
cup 05-P 0982
Sample no. 19 20 = WF 05-93 21 = WF 05-87 22 = WF 05-92
Quantity of soil – WF 0.100 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.050 lt. 0.100 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil C & F = 100% C & F = 100% C & F = 100% C & F = 100%
Fruits
Ficus carica (min.) 2
Ficus carica (charred) 2 2
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 4
Ignota (v. damaged) min. 1

Ignota (identifiable) 1

Table 8. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House I, Room K, House II, con- Open Area

floor-packing, soil structions, 4th between LM I
sample above clay phase, inside cup Houses I and IV,
plate 01-P 0160 05-P 2511 levelling, Pit I
Sample no. 24= WF 01-32 26 = WF 05-84 27
Quantity of soil – WF 0.500 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted C = 100%; F = C & F = 100% C = 100% F = 25%
soil 25%
Fruits
Ficus carica (min.) 1
Ficus carica (charred) 1
cf. Myrtus (min.) 1
Legumes
cf. Lens sp. (min.) 1
Weeds
Malva sp. 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 3
432 Anaya Sarpaki

Table 9. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House IV, House IV, Room C, floor, 29 = semiglobular cup 80-P 1385; 32 = inside jar
Room A, fallen, 80-P 1196; 35 = pithos 84-P 2976a; 36 = inside barrel-shaped jar 84-P 3114;
inside pithos 38 = tripod storage jar 84-P 3125
78-P 0359

29 = AS 7 38 = AS 29
Sample no. 28 = AS 17 32 = AS 9 35 = 36
& 36 & 35
AS 19 & 33

Quantity of soil – WF #WF 160 g 0.200 lt. # WF (in 0.800 lt. 0.200 lt. 0.200 lt.
charcoal)
Quantity of sorted soil C & F = 50% C&F= C = 100% & F 100% 100%
100% = 25%
Fruits
Vitis sp.(pip) (min.) 3

Olea sp. (stone) 1/2

Ficus carica (min.) 1

Prunus amygdalus frgs. 4
Legumes
Legume (large) 3
Legume (medium) 3
Legume (v. small) 1
Legume frg. 1 1
Lathyrus cicera/sativus s.l. 1
cf. Lathyrus cicera 1
Cereals
Triticum sp. 2
Triticum spikelet fork –
Triticum dicoccum 1
Hordeum hulled – grain 565 425
H. vulgare – symmetric 91 143
H. vulgare – assymmetric 132 500
Hordeum sp. rachis 1
Cerealia (culms et al.) 1 1
Weeds
Gramineae (v. small) 1
cf. Medicago sp. 1
cf. Sherardia arvensis 1
Economic plants
Linum usitatissimum *(1)
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 1
Ignota (identifiable) 3 3
food (?) **
 The archaeobotanical remains 433

Table 10. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House IV, Room C, floor

39 = grain from W charcoal area; 40 = grain below pithos 84- P 2976a; 41 = soil between
fresco and vase 16; 43 = soil from Floor 12; 44 = inside jar 84-P 3267
Sample no. 39 = AS 14 40 = AS 16 41 43 = AS 25 & 28 44 = AS 34
Quantity of soil – WF Not WS –not WF 110 g 0.250 lt. 120 g 0.100 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Legumes
Vicia faba var. minor 2 4 158
Vicia faba (cotyl.) 1 15 g
Vicia faba var. minor 1
(infested)
Legume (large) 2 3
Legume (medium) 1
Legume (medium) min. 1
Legume (v. small) 1
Legume frg. 3
Cereals
Hordeum hulled – grain 562
H. vulgare – symmetric 47
H. vulgare – assymmetric 88
cf. Hordeum sp. 1
Cerealia (culms et al.) 1
Weeds
Bromus sp. 2
cf. Bromus sp. 2
cf. Liliaceae 1
Ignota
food (?) *
Ignota (identifiable) 6 + frgs
Ignota (v. damaged) 1

Table 11. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House IV, Room E, floor, House IV, Room H, fallen House IV, Room H, floor
inside conical cup 80-P debris, inside semiglobular deposit, inside semiglobu-
1384 cup 01-P 0767 lar cup 01-P 0764

Sample no. 46 = AS 8 49 51
Quantity of soil – WF Not WF 0.250 lt. 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
Ficus carica (min.) 1
Cereals
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. damaged) 1
Economic plants 1
Linum usitatissimum
cf. Linum sp. frg. 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 1
Misc.
Mouse dung 1
434 Anaya Sarpaki

Table 12. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House IV, Room H, 33-Pit H (a MM III pit) Square small
52 = cup 01-P 1027; 53 = conical cup 01-P 1028; 55 = storage fallen, inside coni-
vessel 01-P 0994 cal cup 84-P 2055
Sample no. 52 53 55 56 = AS 2
Quantity of soil – WF 0.200 lt. 0.200 lt. 0.100 lt. 130 gr.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
Ficus carica (min.) 1 1
Ficus carica (charred) 1
Cereals
Hordeum hulled – grain 1 10
Misc.
Frass 1

Table 13. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Square fallen north, Square, construc- Street between Street between Houses I/
57 = conical cup 84-P tions (LM IB level- Houses I and III, IV and II, constructions, 65
2059; 58 = conical cup ling), inside conical inside conical cup = soil sample floor 17; 66 =
84-P 2053 cup 08-P 0258 05-P 2406 soil sample from ba.4
Sample no. 57 = AS 3 58 = 61 = WF 10-13 64 = WF 05-95 65 66
AS 5
Quantity of soil – WF 85 g 85 g 0.250 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.300 lt. 0.500 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% C = 100%; F = 100% C = 100%; F =
50% 25%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 1 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 3
cf. Ficus carica frgs. 3
Legumes
Lathyrus cicera/sati- 1
vus s.l.
Legume (large) 1
Legume (small) min. 1
Cereals
Triticum/Hordeum 6
-cereal frg.
Cerealia sp. 3
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. 6
damaged)
Cerealia (culms et al.) 1 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 1 1 2
 The archaeobotanical remains 435

Table 14. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House I, drain connected to Room B, drain B

67 = conical cup 01-P 0808; 68 = conical cup 01-P 0809; 69 = conical cup 01-P 0810; 75 = soil sample
in foundation deposit; 76 = soil from 1st layer in drain; 77 = soil from 2nd layer in drain; 78 = soil from
3rd layer in drain; 79 = soil from 4th layer in drain
Sample no. 67 68 69 75 76 77 78 79
Quantity of soil – WF 0.100 lt. 0.200 lt. 0.100 lt. 0.300 lt. 0.300 lt. 0.300 lt. 0.250 lt. 0.250 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% 100% C = 100% C = 100%; C = 100% C = 100%
F = 25% F = 25% F = 25% F = 50%
Fruits
Vitis vinifera pips 1 3 4
Vitis sp. frgs. 4 18 15
cf. Vitis frgs. 5 3
Ficus carica (min.) * ** *** *** 4 2 1

cf. Ficus sp. (min.) 1

cf. Ficus sp. 1
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 3 1
Pyrus sp. (cf. Malus) 1
Legumes
Vicia faba (hilum) 1
Vicia faba (hilum) min. 1
Legume (medium) 1 1
Lathyrus cicera (min.) 2 1 1
cf. Lens sp. (min.) 1 1 1
Legume (small) min. 1 1
Cereals
Triticum/Hordeum frg. 3 1
Economic plants
cf. Allium sativum
(garlic) 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 6 2 19
Ignota (v. damaged) min. 5

Table 15. Neopalatial soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House I, drain con- House I, Room Street, drainage system, main drain, Street drainage
nected to Room B, Q, constructions lower layer, both soil samples system, side
drain 2, soil sample – drain, inside drain 2, inside
conical cup 01-P conical cup 01-P
0817 1084
Sample no. 80 81 = WF 05-77 88 = WF 05-17 89 = WF 05-19 91
Quantity of soil – WF 0.250 lt. 0.300 lt. 14 lt. 13 lt. 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil C = 100% F = 25% C & F = 100% C & F = 100% C & F = 100% 100%
Fruits
Vitis sp. frgs. 1 1
Olea sp. frgs. 2
Ficus carica (min.) 1 2
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 1 1
Myrtus sp. 1
Weeds
Gramineae (v. small) 1
436 Anaya Sarpaki

Table 16. LM II soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Southwestern Southwestern House III South Street, constructions

area, Deposit Area, deposit 11 & 12 = sample of Floor 51 9 = Sieving, sample of soil (see
2, soil sample, below 23-Pit (see p. 168); 13 = sample of p. 190); 10 = sample of green
cleaning of K/L, soil sample Floor 52 (see p. 168) earth from the bottom of
floor (see p. 154) (see p. 161) 12/13-Pit P (see p. 191)
Sample no. 2 = WF 05-011 7 = WS 11 = WF 12 = WF 13 = 9 = WF 05-79 10 = WS
05-45 05-62 WF
05-66
Quantity of soil –WF 2.7 lt. 0.200 lt. 16 lt. 18 lt. 12 lt. 2 lt. 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% C = 100%; F 100% 100% 100% C = 100%; F C = 100%; F
= 1/4 1/16 = 1/4
Fruits
Vitis sp. (pip) (min.) 1
Vitis sp. frgs. 1 3
Olea sp. (stone) 14
1
Olea sp. frgs. 2 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 1
Legumes
Vicia faba var. minor
1
Lens sp. 1 1
Lathyrus cicera/sativus
s.l. 1
cf. Lathyrus cicera s.l. 1
frgs.
Lens sp./Vicia sp. 1
Legume (medium) 1
Legume frg. 3 2 4
Cereals
Hordeum hulled – 2 4 1
grain
Hordeum frgs. 3 8 12
Weeds
cf. Bromus sp. 1
Ignota
Ignota (identifiable) 1 1 36
Ignota (v. damaged) 1 19
Misc.
Dung (rodent) 1
 The archaeobotanical remains 437

Table 17. LM IIIA:1 soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains House III, House III, phase 2, 2 = removal of

phase 1, clean- Floor 46 (see p. 63); 3 = removal of
ing of Floor Floor 44 (see p. 63)
48 (see p. 65)
Sample no. 4 = WF 05-50 2 = WF 05-51 3 = WF 05-63
Quantity of soil – WF 14 lt. 15 lt. 13 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
Olea sp. frgs. 3 1
Vitis sp. frgs. 1
Ficus carica (min.) 3 3
Ficus carica (charred) 1
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 2 5
Legumes
Lens sp. 1 1
Lathyrus cicera/sativus 1
s.l.
Legume (large) 2
Legume frg. 7 5
Cereals
Cerealia sp. 4
Triticum/Hordeum 6
cereal frg.
Hordeum hulled – grain 1
cf. Hordeum sp. 3
Hordeum frgs. 2
Weeds
Malva sylvestris 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 8 11 2
Ignota (identifiable) 2
438 Anaya Sarpaki

Table 18. LM IIIA:1 soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Rubbish Area Rubbish Area, Southeast, 13-Pit L, 6 Rubbish Area East,
south, 6-Pit B, = inside goblet 82-P 1542 (see p. 125); eastern deposit,
lower layer, soil 7 = inside yellow sandstone 84-S 029 dump, soil sample
sample (see p. 76) (see p. 139) (see p. 92)
Sample no. 8 = WF 05-48 6 = WS 7 = WS (AS 6) 9 = WF 05-18
(AS 51)
Quantity of soil – WF 3 lt. 0.200 lt. 1.500 lt. 16 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% C = 100%; F = 1/8 100%
Fruits
Vitis vinifera pips 1 1
Vitis sp. frgs. 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 5 6
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 3
Legumes
cf. Lens sp. 2
Cereals
Triticum cf. dicoccum 1
(grain)
Hordeum hulled – grain 13
Hordeum sp. rachis 1
Panicum miliaceum 1
Weeds
Lolium temulentum 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 2 2 3
Ignota (identifiable) 2
Misc.
basket (?) frg. 1

Table 19. LM IIIA:2 soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Building 2 – Room B, removal of Building 1 – Space J, cleaning

Floor 39 (GSE Suppl. forth.) Floor 8 (GSE Suppl. forth.)
Sample no. 3 = WF 05-42 2 = WF 05-70
Quantity of soil – WF 13 lt. 1.2 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100 % 100 %
Fruits
Vitis vinifera pips 1
Ficus carica (min.) 2
Legumes
Lathyrus cicera/sativus s.l. 3
Lens sp. 2
cf. Lens sp. 2
Legume frg. 24 1
Cereals
Cerealia (culms et al.) 1
Hordeum sp. rachis 18
cf. Hordeum sp. 23
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 16++
 The archaeobotanical remains 439

Table 20. LM IIIB:1 soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Building 1, Corridor/ Building 1, Room A, content of

Space I, content of stor- storage pit, cf. GSE IV, 43-46
age pit, cf. GSE IV, 75
Sample no. 2 = AS 15 3
Quantity of soil – WF #WS 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil Hand-collected C = 100%; F = 50%
Fruits
Olea sp. frgs. 11
Cereals
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. damaged) 2
Economic plants
Linum usitatissimum 8
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) min. 5

Table 21. LM IIIB:1 soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Building 1, Room B, all from Δ9, lower pit (GSE Suppl. forth.)
Sample no. 4 = WF 05-28 5 = WF 05-30 6 = WF 05-35 8 = WF 05-040 9 = WF 05-56
Quantity of soil – WF 16 lt. 6 lt. 2 lt. 10 lt. 7 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
Vitis sp. (pip) min. **
Vitis sp. frgs. 1
Olea sp. frgs. 1
Ficus carica (min.) 9 6 4 1
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 1
Legumes
Legume frg. 1 1
Cereals
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. damaged) 1
Triticum/Hordeum cereal frg. 1
Cerealia (culms et al.) 1
cf. Hordeum sp. 1
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 2 1
Ignota (featureless) 1
subfossil 1

Key: **: many pips were on the way to becoming mineralized or they could be subfossil.
440 Anaya Sarpaki

Table 22. LM IIIB:1 soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Building 2, Room A, 11 = Building 2, Room B, 14 = removal of Floor 37; Courtyard, 19 =
removal of Floor 42; 12 = 15 = inside stirrup jar 05-P 1848; 16 = removal of removal of Floor
removal of Floor 43; 13 = Floor 36; 17 = removal of Floor 43; 18 = removal 15; 20 = removal of
cleaning of Floor 43 (all of Floor 38 (all GSE Suppl. forth.) Floor 16 (both GSE
GSE Suppl. forth.) Suppl. forth.)
Sample no. 11 = 12 = 13 = 14 = WF 15 = WF 16 = 17 = 18 = 19 = 20 = WF
WF WF WF 05-29 05-31 WF WF WF WF 05-16
05-44 05-52 05-64 05-34 05-41 05-43 05-10
Quantity of soil 17 lt. 12 lt. 18 lt. 6 lt. 5 lt. 3.5 lt. 17 lt. 12 lt. 15 lt. 18 lt.
– WF
Quantity of sorted 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
soil
Fruits  
Vitis vinifera pips 1
Vitis sp. frgs. 14 2 1 1
Olea sp. frgs. 2 5 3 1 4 1
Ficus carica (min.) 1 54 59   4 8 3.5 1
F. carica (charred) 2.5 9 5.5 7 1 3 3.5 1
cf. Ficus fruit frg. 5 1   2
(charred)
Prunus amygdalus 1 1   1 1 5 1 2 4
frgs.
cf. Rubus sp.   1
Legumes  
Lathyrus cicera/ 1
sativus s.l.
Lens sp. 1  
cf. Lens sp. 1.5
Lens sp./Vicia sp. 1
Legume frg. 4 2 3 1
Cereals
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. 2 1
damaged)
Cerealia sp.   1
Cerealia (culms 3  
et al.)
Hordeum sp. rachis 1  
cf. Hordeum sp. 2 4   1
Economic Plants  
Celtis australis
1
Weeds  
Bugglosoides 7
arvensis (min.)
Malva sylvestris   6
Ignota  
food (?) 2
Ignota (v. 5 10 4 12 3 6 7 4 2 4
damaged)
Ignota   2.5
(identifiable)
Ignota   1 2
(featureless)
Misc.
basket (?) frg. 1 1 1
 The archaeobotanical remains 441

Table 23. LM IIIB:2 soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Building 1, Courtyard F, the oven, 3 = 1st ash layer; 4 = below 1st Courtyard Rubbish Area
ash layer; 5 = 2nd ash layer; 6 = below 2nd ash layer; 7 = ash from F, levelling, North, 9 = 80-MISC
below clay lining (GSE III, 81-83) above Floor 008 (GSE III, 144);
2, 80-MISC 10 = inside plain la-
004 (GSE dle 01-P 0307 (GSE
III, 84) III, 151)
Sample no. 3 = AS 27 4 = AS 26 5 = AS 30 6 = AS 50 7 = AS 49 8 = AS 10 9 = AS 10
& 48 12
Quantity of soil – WF # WS 0.500 lt. 0.500 lt. 0.500 lt. 0.200 lt. #WS # WS 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil C=100%; C=100%; C=100%; 100% 100%
F=50% F=50% F=50%
Fruits
cf. Vitis frgs. 1
Olea sp. frgs. 3
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 1 1 1
Ficus carica (min.) 2 1
Ficus carica (charred) 1
Cereals
Cerealia sp. 11 2 54
cf. Cerealia sp. (v. dam- 5
aged)
Cerealia embryo 1
Triticum spikelet fork – 1 14
cf. T. monococcum
Triticum spikelet fork – 1
T. dicoccum
Triticum sp. 2
Triticum grain – cf. 1
aestivum
H. vulgare – symmetric 1 1
Hordeum hulled – 2
grain
cf. Hordeum sp. 1
Triticum glume base 3 88
Triticum glume base cf. 1
end of ear
Triticum awn frgs. 1
Triticum/Hordeum/ *** ***
ignota awn frgs.
Cerealia (culms et al.) 3 4
Hordeum sp. rachis 6
Legumes 2
Vicia faba (cotyl.)
cf. Lathyrus cicera 2
Legume frg. 4
Legume (v. small) 1
Economic plants
cf. Linum sp. frg. 1
Labiatae 1
Schoenus nigricans – 1 1
min. & charred
Weeds
Bugglosoides arvensis 1
(min.)
Phalaris sp. 5
cf. Euphorbia sp. 1
Malva sylvestris 1
Ignota 7 12 3
Ignota (v. damaged)
442 Anaya Sarpaki

Table 24. LM IIIB:2 soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Building 2, Room A, 11, 12, 15 = inside oven/kouskou- Courtyard, 17 = re- Building 2,
ras structure 13, 14 = cleaning Floor 27 (all GSE Suppl. moval of Floor 9; 18 = Room B, in-
forth.) inside cup 05-P 1067 side kylix 05-P
(both GSE Suppl. 1690 (GSE
forth.) Suppl. forth.)
Sample no. 11 = WF 12 = WF 15 = WF 13 = WF 14 = WF 17 = WF 18 = WF 16 = WF 05-83
05-23 05-24 05-67 05-25 05-26 05-08 05-85
Quantity of soil – WF 18 lt 15 lt 6 lt 2 lt 13 lt 17 lt * 0.100 lt
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
cf. Vitis frgs. 1
Olea sp. frgs. 1 1 1 4
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 2 1 5 3
Ficus carica (min.) 10 1 2 3 1 3
Ficus carica (charred) 8 3
Ficus carica – fruit frgs. 1
cf. Pyrus sp. 1
Cereals
Triticum sp. (cf. mono- 1
coccum) gl. base
Hordeum sp. frgs. 1 1 1
Cerealia – damaged 1
Legumes 1
Lathyrus cicera/sativus
cf. Lathyrus cicera/sativus 1
Legume frgs. 1 1 2
Weeds
Lolium sp. 1
Ignota 13 11
Ignota (damaged) 4 4 2
Ignota – subfossil 8
Ignota – identifiable 1 4 +fr.
Misc.
Dung (mouse) 3

Key: *= 1 soup spoonful

 The archaeobotanical remains 443

Table 25. LM IIIC soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Building 1, 3 = Courtyard F, inside Building 2, Room A, 7 = inside cook-

pithos 80-P 1636 (GSE II, 65); 4 =
Room M, floor deposit (GSE II, 77)
Sample no. 3 4 = AS 13
Quantity of soil –WF WS – 0.200 lt. WS
ing pot 84-P 0658 (GSE II, 91); 8 =
cleaning of Floor 24 (GSE Suppl.
forth.)
7 8 = WF 05-20
WS – 0.500 lt. 11 lt.

Quantity of sorted soil 100% # WF C = 100%; F = 1/4 100%

Fruits
Olea sp. (stone) 1/2
Olea sp. frgs. 13
Vitis sp. frgs. 1
cf. Vitis frgs. 3
Ficus carica (min.) 2
Ficus carica charred 1
cf. Ficus sp. (min.) 1
Prunus amygdalus frgs. 5
Cereals
Triticum spikelet fork – 1
T. monococcum spkt fk 1
cf. Hordeum sp. frgs. 1
Legumes
Lathyrus cicera/sativus 1
Legume frgs. 5
Ignota
Ignota (v. damaged) 8 3
Ignota (subfossil) 6

Table 26. LM IIIC soil samples with archaeobotanical remains

Seed remains Courtyard, floors, 10 = Floor 6; 11= Floor 8; 12 = inside tripod cooking pot
05-P 1115 (all GSE Suppl. forth.)
Sample no. 10 = WF 05-12 11 = WF 05-13 12 = WF 05-96
Quantity of soil –WF 3 lt. 12 lt. c. 0.200 lt.
Quantity of sorted soil 100% 100% 100%
Fruits
Olea europaea – frgs. 1
Vitis vinifera frgs. 2
Cereals
Cerealia sp. (damaged) 1
Triticum sp. 1
Ignota
Ignota (identifiable?) 1
444 Anaya Sarpaki
Bibliography
Beck, C.W., E. Stout, K.C. Lee, A.A. Chase & N. DeRosa,
2008 ‘Analysis of organic remains in the fabric of Minoan and Myc-
enaean pottery sherds by gas chromatography-mas spectrome-
try’, in Archaeology Meets Science: Biomolecular Investigations
in Bronze Age Greece, Y. Tzedakis & H. Martlew (eds), Oxbow
2008, 12–47.
Braadbaart, F., E. Marinova & A. Sarpaki,
forth. Experimental charring of modern olive stones and olive
processing residues: implementing the results to assess the use
of residues from the Bronze Age sites of Akrotiri (Greece) and
Tell Tweini (Syria), and the historical site of Kalaureia on Po-
ros Island (Greece).
Braadbaart, F., I. Poole. & A. Van Brussel,
2009 ‘Preservation potential of charcoal in alkaline environments:
an experimental approach and implications for the archaeo-
logical record’, Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009),
1672–1679.
Christakis, K.S. ,
2011 ‘Pithoi and economy in LM IB state societies,’ in LM IB Pot-
tery: Relative Chronology and Regional Differences. Acts of a
Workshop held at the Danish Institute at Athens in collabora-
tion with the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, 27–29 June
2007, (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Vol. 11,
1–2), T.M. Brogan & E. Hallager (eds.), Athens 2011, 241–253.
Darby, W.J., P. Ghalioungui & L. Grivetti,
1977 Food: The Gift of Osiris. Vol. 2, London 1977.
de Moulins, D.,
1996 ‘Sieving experiment: the controlled recovery of charred re-
mains from modern and archaeological samples,’ in Early
Farming in the Old World. A special volume of Vegetation His-
tory and Archaeobotany, K-E. Behre & K. Oeggl (eds), Heidel-
berg 1996, 153–156.
Fenton, A.,
1978 The Northern Isles: Orkney and Shetland. Edinburgh 1978.
Follieri, M.,
1982 ‘Cibi carbonizzati in livelli tardo Minoici a Canea (Creta oc-
cidentale)’, SMEA 80 (1982), 137-139.
French, D.H.,
1971 ‘An experiment in water sieving’, Anatolian Studies 21 (1971),
59–64.
Graham, P.J. & A. Smith,
2013 ‘A day in the life of an Ubaid household: archaeobotanical in-
vestigations at Kenan Tepe, south-eastern Turkey’, Antiquity
87 (2013), 405–41.
Hald, M.M. & M. Charles,
2008 ‘Storage of crops during the fourth and third millennia BC at
the settlement mound of Tell Brak, northeast Syria’, Veget.Hist.
Archaeobot. 17 (2008) (suppl.1), S35–S41.
Hallager, E.,
2001 ‘Sealing without seals’ (Arbejdspapirer, Center for kultur-
forskning, Aarhus Universitet 99), Aarhus 2001, 1–16.
2002 ’Wine and pithoi: written and archaeological evidence’, in Οί-
νος Παλαιός Ηδύποτος: το κρητικό κρασί από τα προϊστορικά ως
τα νεώτερα χρόνια. Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Επιστημονικού Συμπο-
σίου, Κουνάβοι, Δήμος <Ν,Καζαντζάκης>, 24–26 Απριλίου 1998.
Heraklion 2002, 61–67.
Halstead, P.,
2014 Two-Oxen ahead: Pre-mechanized farming in the Mediterra-
nean. Blackwell 2014.
Hillman, G.,
1981a ‘Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred re-
mains of crops’, in Farming practice in British Prehistory, R.
Mercer (ed.) Edinburgh 1981, 123–162.
1981b ‘Crop procesing at Assiros Toumba: a taphonomic study’,
Zeitschrift für Archäologie 15 (1981), 105–112.
1984 ‘Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in
modern times: Part 1, the glume wheats’, Bulletin on Sumerian
Agriculture 1 (1984), 114–152.
Jones, G.,
1981 ‘Crop processing at Assiros Toumba – a taphonomic study’
ZfA, 15, 105–111.
1987 ‘Agricultural practice in Greek Prehistory’, BSA 82 (1987).
115–123.
Kardulias, P.N. & R. Yerkes,
1996 ‘Microwear and metric analysis of threshing sledge flints from
Greece and Cyprus’, Journal of Archaeological Science 23
(1996), 657–666.
Levinson, H. & A. Levinson,
2009 ‘Control of stored food pests in the ancient Orient and Classi-
cal antiquity’, J. of Applied Entomology 122 (2009), 137–144.
Livarda, A. & G. Kotzamani,
2014 ‘The archaeobotany of Neolithic and Bronze Age Crete: syn-
thesis and prospects’, BSA 108 (2014), 1–29.
Meurers-Balke, J. & J. Lüning,
1992 ‘Some aspects and experiments concerning the processing of
glume wheats’, in Préhistoire de l’Agriculture: Nouvelles Ap-
proches Expérimentales et Ethnographiques (Monographie du
CRA, no.6. CNRS), P. Anderson (ed), Paris 1992, 341–362.
Moody, J.,
2000 ‘Holocene climate change in Crete: an archaeologist’s view’,
in Landscape and land use in postglacial Greece, P. Halstead &
Ch. Frederick (eds.), Sheffield (2000), 52–61.
2005 ‘Unravelling the threads: climate changes in the Late Bronze
III Aegean’, Ariadne’s Threads: Connections between Crete
and the Greek mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM
IIIC), Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Ath-
ens, Scuola Archeologica Italiana, 5–6 April 2003 (Tripodes 3),
A.L. D’Agata & J. Moody (eds.), Athens 2005, 443–470.
2014 ‘Prehistoric and historic climate and weather in (East) Crete’,
in A Cretan landscape through time: Priniatikos Pyrgos and en-
virons (BAR, International Series 2634), B.P.C. Molloy & Ch.
N. Duckworth (eds), Oxford 2014, 23–30.
Nesbitt, M., G. Hillman, L. Peña-Chocarro, D. Samuel & A.T. Szabó,
1996 ‘Checklist for recording the cultivation and uses of hulled
wheats’, in Hulled wheats. Promoting the conservation and use
of underutilized and neglected crops. 4. Proceedings of the First
International Workshop on Hulled Wheats, 21–22 July 1995,
Castelvecchio Pascoli, Tuscany, Italy (International Plant Ge-
netic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy), S. Padulosi, K. Ham-
mer & J. Heller (eds.), Rome 1996, 234–245.
Nesbitt, M. & D. Samuel,
1996 ‘From staple crop to extinction? The archaeology and history
of hulled wheats’, in Hulled Wheats. Promoting the conservation
and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 4. Proceedings of
the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats, 21–22 July
1995, Castelvecchio Pascoli, Tuscany, Italy (International Plant
Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy), S. Padulosi, K. Ham-
mer & J. Heller (eds.), Rome 1996, 41–100.
Panagiotakopulu, E, P. Buckland, P. Day, P. A. Sarpaki & C. Doumas,
1995 ‘Natural insecticides and incest repellents in antiquity: a review
of the evidence’, Journal of Archaeological Science 22 (1995),
705–710.
Sarpaki, A.,
1992 ‘A palaeoethnobotanical approach. The Mediterranean triad
or is it a quartet?’, in Agriculture in ancient Greece (ActaAth-
4º, 42), B. Wells (ed.), Stockholm 1992, 61–76.
1999 ‘The archaeobotanical study of Tzambakas house, Rethymnon,
Crete’, in Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of their Time, Y.
Tzedakis & H. Martlew (eds.), Athens 1999, 40–41; 101; 102.
 The archaeobotanical remains
2000 ‘Plants chosen to be depicted on Theran wall-paintings: tenta-
tive interpretations’, in Proceedings of the First International
Symposium ‘The wall paintings of Thera’ (September 1997). S.
Sherratt (ed.), Athens 2000, 657–680.
2007 ‘Résultats archéobotaniques préliminaires dans divers sect-
eurs de Malia’, BCH, 131, (2007), 882–884.
2013 ‘The economy of Neolithic Knossos: the archaeobotanical
(seed macrofossil) data’, in The Neolithic settlement of Knossos
in Crete. New evidence for the early occupation of Crete and the
Aegean islands (INSTAP monograph series), N. Efstratiou, A.
Karetsou & M. Ntinou (eds.) Philadephia 2013. 63–94.
Schoep, I.,
2002 ‘Social and political organization on Crete in the Proto-Pala-
tial period: the case of Middle Minoan II Malia’, Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 15 (2002), 101–132.
445
Sigaut, F.,
2003 ‘Pour une méthode d’identification des systems et des tech-
niques d’égrenage’, in Le traitement des récoltes: un regard sur
la diversité, du Néolithique au present. XXIIIe rencontres inter-
nationals d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, P.C. Anderson,
L.C. Cummings, T.K. Schippers and B. Simonel (eds.), Antibes
2003, 515–521.
Valamoti, S.M.,
2009 H αρχαιοβοτανική έρευνα της διατροφής στην προϊστορική Ελλάδα,
Thessaloniki 2009.
2013 ‘Millet, the late comer: on the tracks of Panicum miliaceum in
prehistoric Greece’, Archaeological and Anthropological Sci-
ences, 5 (issue 1, 2013), 1–13.
Zohary, D., M. Hopf & E. Weiss,
2012 Domestication of the Plants in the Old World (4th Edition), Ox-
ford 2012.
 446 Anaya Sarpaki

N 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 THE GREEK-SWEDISH EXCAVATIONS
724 724
Kastelli, Khania 1970-1987, 2001, 2005 and 2008
723 723

722 722 The LM I settlement

522 523 524 525 526 527 528
721 529 530
531 532
533 534
535
720 720

719 719

718 718

717 14 717

716 D 716
G 5
House III
715 715
4
508 509
714 2 E 8 6 714
12 9
1
10 11 15
A 713
713 3
A
712 22 12 712
27 20 21 17
711 H 19 M
16 711

710 48 52 710
49 55
709
51 53 C 64
709

708 708
N Q
707
B H 707
G O 57
706 D House I 8281 58
706
75 91 56
705
House IV 24
83
61
90 705

704 F K 704
36 B
23
I
703 80 703
74-79 89
28
702 C 29 A 67
68
88
702
39 45 32 69 70-71
701
33 41
35 43 38 A 701
40 65 86
44
700 46 E 66 B House II
700
699 26 C 699
509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535

Fig. 4. Distribution map of samples with archaeobotanical and microfauna remains from the Neopalatial settlement. The numbers are
the ones found in Tables 4-15 (archaeobotanical) and Tables 13-17 (microfauna).